Transcript

1.
File types accepted
Access Restrictions
Data Record Organization
Metadata
Editorial Control
Summary
Archaeologists are faced with several options
when choosing a repository for access and
preservation of their research data.
The Digital Archaeological Record (tDAR) and
Open Context are two archaeological repositories
based in the United States, with similar goals but
different approaches to the treatment and
presentation of data.
When several repositories are available in the
same discipline, subject librarians and data
consultation services can assist researchers by
collecting descriptive information about the
repositories and constructing a comparative
chart. This allows for faster evaluation and
identification of the most optimal database for a
specific project.
Acknowledgments
University of Illinois Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research
University of Illinois Library
Eric Kansa & Perry Willett
Comparing Disciplinary Repositories: tDAR vs. Open Context
Beth Sheehan
edivince@illinois.edu
Social Sciences Research Services Librarian
Social Sciences, Health, and Education Library
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Opportunities for comparative
research, discovery and reuse may
increase if deposited with data
from similar region/ cultural group
If all content cannot be made
public due to publisher
restrictions or other legal or
research-related concerns, it
should be deposited in tDAR.
Contents of datasets are more
easily browsed and compared in
Open Context.
The type of metadata used and
the level of granularity at which it
is applied affects the ability to
compare contents of datasets
within the same repository and
between different repositories.
Open Context is similar to scholarly
journal publication model. Ideal for
primary research datasets and
associated documents.
Implications for Archaeology Data Decisions
tDAR Open Context
• Contents of data files can be restricted OR
publicly accessible.
• Restriction options:
•Limit view/download to specific users.
AND/OR
•Temporary embargo for up to 4 years
• Contents of ALL data files are publicly, openly
accessible.
• No access restrictions to specific users or embargo
options are available.
• Records and metadata assigned and searchable at
project/dataset/file level, NOT at individual
artifact (dataset contents) level.
• Individual artifacts cannot be browsed/searched,
viewed or compared within tDAR without
additional ontology manipulation.
• Records and metadata assigned and searchable at
project/dataset/file level, AND at individual
artifact (dataset contents) level.
• Individual artifacts can be browsed/searched,
viewed, and compared within Open Context.
• Description at artifact level is standardized.
• Dublin Core/MODS
• applied at upper level of record entry
• ArchaeoML (XML)
• applied at dataset content (artifact) level
• No mention of editorial control or peer review
requirements prior to acceptance and ingest.
• Reserves the right to remove content that does not
conform to accession policy and standards.
• Includes varying levels of peer review and
editorial control/review, performed prior to
acceptance.
• Review status indicated in data records.
Geographic Coverage
• Virtual: Remote Sensing Files, 3D scans
Geospatial: Shapefiles, GeoTIFF/GeoJPG,
Geodatabases
• Text: .pdf, .doc/.docx, .rtf, .text
• Datasets: .csv, .tab, .xls/.xlsx, .accdb/.mdb
• Images: .tiff/.tif, .gif, .jpg/.jpeg, .bmp, .pict, .png
• Virtual: GIS and specialized datasets (CADD,
remote sensing, 3D point clouds) accessioned as
digital objects, not for live processing or
visualizations.
• Text: .pdf, .doc/.docx
• Datasets:.xls/.xlsx preferred. Also accept
Filemaker, .accdb/.mdb, .odf, .csv.
• Images
www.tdar.org www.opencontext.org
Differences
• Primary: North America (approx 90% from United
States)
• Secondary: Middle East, Europe
• Primary: Middle East (approx 80% from Jordan,
Turkey, Iran)
• Secondary: Europe, North America, Asia, Africa
Use tDAR for projects relying
heavily on remote sensing,
visualization, or geospatial data,
in order for the data to be
maintained in a reusable form.
Open Context staff will refer these
researchers to tDAR.
Sets of records that are not
datasets or associated with
datasets may be better suited for
tDAR.
tDAR is similar to traditional digital
repository model. Can more easily
handle fragmentary or incomplete
records and deposit by third parties.
Conclusion
Both tDAR and Open Context are strong options
for archaeological data sharing and preservation..
Each has unique strengths and attributes which
can make one repository more desirable or
suitable than another, depending on the
parameters of the research project and
associated data, and researcher/depositor goals
for data description, sharing and reuse.
Next Steps
A research paper detailing additional findings
from this repository comparison is in progress, to
be submitted for publication in an archaeological
journal within the calendar year.
The author plans further studies of
archaeological researcher data management
choices and practices. This information will be
used to determine what types of data assistance,
consultation services and outreach will be most
effective for researchers in this discipline.
March 2014